[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150127204239.3d3bc2e4@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 20:42:39 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] sched: Use traced preempt count operations to
toggle PREEMPT_ACTIVE
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 01:24:10 +0100
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> d1f74e20b5b064a130cd0743a256c2d3cfe84010 turned PREEMPT_ACTIVE modifiers
> to use raw untraced preempt count operations. Meanwhile this prevents
> from debugging and tracing preemption disabled if we pull that
> responsibility to schedule() callers (see following patches).
>
> Is there anything we can do about that?
>
I'm trying to understand how you solved the recursion issue with
preempt_schedule()?
Here's what happens:
preempt_schedule()
preempt_count_add() -> gets traced by function tracer
function_trace_call()
preempt_disable_notrace()
[...]
preempt_enable_notrace() -> sees NEED_RESCHED set
preempt_schedule()
preempt_count_add() -> gets traced
function_trace_call()
preempt_disable_notrace()
preempt_enable_notrace() -> sees NEED_RESCHED set
[etc etc until BOOM!]
Perhaps if you can find a way to clear NEED_RECHED before disabling
preemption, then it would work. But I don't see that in the patch
series.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists